TMingyur wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
The point here is simply that if the statement was made as indirectly quoted by Catmoon ("The post is not there") it is a very unskillful and absurd statement made by this person called "teacher" here. I would question the qualification as "teacher" of a person speaking in such irrational terms.
But as Catmoon mentioned there seems to have been an explanation afterwards. So it seems to be okay but there arises the suspicion that the instance may have been a case of sophistry.
There is nothing absurd about this the teacher's statement. The literature that is the source of Mahayana doctrine frequently refers to conventional reality as like a dream. Why? Because no single, solid, indivisible, truly existing part can be found to any of what we consider conventional reality. That's why it is "conventional" and not absolute. Everywhere you look, there are objects that are merely appearing, which is because they are comprised of parts and possess no self-nature as the thing that appears, i.e. "table-ness" or pillar-ness"; then, analyzing these merely appearing objects' parts, we can determine that those parts are themselves comprised of other parts also cannot be established beyond their mere appearance. Nothing unified and static can be found no matter where one looks. This is as much true of the people as it is the pillar, with the exception that the people possess consciousness. Of course, each individual's "consciousness" is only a continuum of instants of consciousness which arise within emptiness and dissolve back into it.
TMingyur wrote:
Kind regards
Does it
not feel odd to say very unkind things, such as accusing someone's teacher of being unskilled, unqualified, and making absurd statements, then to follow that with "kind regards?"
